This Makes No Sense
Pitting Children Against Vets
I have been spending a considerable amount of time having phone and coffee conversations with residents and business owners of Mission Hills and Old Town who are totally dismayed about a Veterans Affairs (VA) facility being proposed for property located directly across from Old Town Academy, a SDUSD Charter School, which currently has upward of 220 students. The property being proposed for the VA facility used to be Thomas Jefferson Law School, located at 2121 San Diego Avenue, right across the street from the school.
Referred to as a “Domiciliary Residential Rehabilitation and Treatment Program,” the VA facility would have 40 beds and provide treatment for war veterans who are impacted by Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, mild to moderate brain injuries and possible substance abuse issues. It will also provide “private, hotel-type accommodations” for its clientele.
There are several reasons that I am shocked and dismayed that this is even being considered. First of all is that the zoning does not allow for a facility of this type without a CUP – a conditional use permit – to allow something that doesn’t belong to be permitted. Second of all, this type of medical treatment facility does not meet with the community plan that many people and organizations have been working on for several years, including the Old Town Chamber of Commerce and Mission Hills Business Improvement District (BID).
Ordinarily, in order for a VA facility of this type to be approved for this site, the zoning would have to change – but here, there is a procedure to avoid the zoning change called a CUP, which changes the zoning for just the affected property. If the CUP changes to support this facility, this could dramatically change the future landscape of the area, and can have a substantial impact on the businesses and residents in close proximity, including Mission Hills.
The unfortunate part of all of this is that the residents and businesses opposed to the zoning change for this medical VA facility are now being tagged as “anti-American,” which is a careless interpretation by a few, including some members of the media. I say shame on them.
The residents and business owners opposed to the zoning change have been proactive and have offered solutions to this need for a VA facility, starting with identifying other sites that “make total sense,” because they are “zoned” for this type of facility, do not carry the risk of closing a neighborhood school, and can be implemented immediately, without delays.
At the same time, when we consider the financial state of our Federal, State and local government, why not even go one step further for a logical and fiscally sound option? Why not place the VA facility on military property, at MCRD? There are vacant buildings and plenty of space to accommodate this, at a dramatically reduced cost. Am I wrong? Or, does that make me anti-American because I want our government to operate more ethically and fiscally responsible?
If it were a drug and alcohol rehab facility for non-veterans, medical professionals throughout the City would be lining up to oppose location of such a facility just 20 feet from a thriving grade school. I am appalled that our elected officials have let this get to this point, where “children are being pitted against vets,” and neighbors who have voiced opposition are being threatened. There is no logical reason for this.
The residents and business owners I’ve spoken to want to help expedite a VA facility, however, with common sense as a primary factor.
It’s time to do what’s right. Select a site for this facility that is within the zoning and neighborhood plan guidelines that provides more property at less cost, and doesn’t break the rules. With that thought, I will continue to ask, “What’s wrong with considering military buildings that are sitting vacant? Why Not?”
Now that I’ve voiced my opinion, want to share yours? Please visit our website: www.presidiosentinel.com.
Category: Business, Local News
I couldn’t agree more. It is indeed shameful that the VA and its sub-groups have distorted this issue almost beyond recognition. Those who oppose the facility oppose it because a mental health treatment facility is not appropriate to the location, the neighborhood is not zoned for it, and the extremely close proximity to the k-8 school (22 feet is what I’ve heard) is uncomfortable. I have not heard a single voice oppose the facility on the grounds that it treats Veterans. Indeed, that could be interpreted as a shallow judgement.
If we could get the discussion focused around the real issue, which is whether or not this location is ideal for a medical or mental health treatment program, then I suspect it would be more productive. But as long as the loudest voices are creating distractions with shouts of “NIMBY!” and “Anti-American” we’ll get nowhere. It insults my intelligence to even engage in a conversation with someone who insists that if this location isn’t approved, then the entire domiciliary project is doomed and we’re all turning our backs on the young people who have given so much to our country. Really now, are there no clear-headed professionals who can step into the dialog and explore the numerous other options available for this facility without namecalling and stereotypes?
Few families in San Diego don’t have at least one person who has served or is serving the country. This community is very pro-military and pro-veteran. Please don’t assume that taking a cautionary approach to the appropriate location of a treatment facility is anything other than wise judgement. I, for one, am uncomfortable with even the most remote possibility that treatment fails to meet the needs of one of the patients and hundreds of school children could be put at risk. If that should happen, we’d all regret not having been more careful in balancing the risks against the benefits.
I am not ignorant about the facts. I have studied more than most about the issues of vetaran homelessness, PTSD incidence and treatment, and the 5-year plans underway at the national, state and municipal level to eradicate homelessness. What I have not read is that we should be expected to sacrifice any element of safety for our children in order to accomplish those goals.
We appreciate your comments and proposal for civil discussions that bring about resolve that is beneficial to all parties. With that in mind, we will continue to update readers and interested parties. We believe this can have a positivie outcome if we come to an agreement that we all benefit when we work as a team. I do believe there is an important lesson to be learned from this experience.
Ms. Brooks – I appreciate very much a civil dialogue on this issue, and your attempt to introduce some rational discourse on an otherwise sensitive topic. I am a strong supporter of the Veterans in our community, yet I wonder if the City would ever place a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center and mental health hospital for non-veterans across the street from a grade school — I sincerely doubt it, as that would seem irresponsible to subject students to that risk, and exposure to that type of behavior. Does it seem any more responsible to build such a facility for trained military personnel next door to a grade school? Since the school is the previously existing, permitted use, one wonders why utilizing any one of the many of empty buildings at MCRD — with little or no expense to the government for rent (which of course would allow the government to spend that blazing $50,000+ monthly rental cost directly on care for our Veteran heroes instead of handing bundles of cash to a profiteering landlord), isn’t the sensible alternative, as suggested by our responsible editor.
I couldn’t agree LESS! Your article literally turned my stomach this morning. I read it while waiting for the Union-Tribune to arrive this a.m.
You oppose a facility to treat mentally diabled veterans because it is across the street from a SDUSD charter school.
What you fail to understand is that:
1. The American With Disabilities Act protects these veterans from discrimination in public facilities as much as any other disabled persons.
2. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act is to the same effect.
3. The area you refer to in Old Town is a fringe area to begin with, including a bar right down the street.
4. These mentally disabled veterans need much more help than the
children attending a charter school which should be closed anyway, given the awful financial trouble the SDUSD is undergoing. The waste in the SDUSD is beyond description. This charter school is simply unnecessary as there are numerous other elementary schools in the area including Grant Elementary, a GATE school.
But what I just can’t get over is the snobbery implicit in your article which reminds me of the days when people said, “Not in my neighborhood.” Would you have the same opinion if this facility was proposed for treatment of gays and others needing medical treatment for AIDS?
I don’t view your article as anti-American, because that misses the mark. I view it as discriminatory in the extreme.
Our veterans need help-whether it involves physical or mental disabilities.
It is indeed ironic that the front page of the U-T this morning started a tradition on New Year’s Day of naming the San Diego person of the year. The first person named to this honor was: The Marine.
Ummm…obviously, you didn’t’ read the article.
We/I believe it is very important to support the military…as a youngster, I used to visit Viet Nam vets who were hospitalized to show support and kindness. I always felt that we didn’t do enough for those who were at the forefront of the wars/battles…and I still believe we don’t do enough.
However, as I stated in the article, we should never “pit children against vets.” There are no benefits of this type of effort. And, I believe we need to really consider the consequences of our actions…We can do what is best for the military personnel that is beneficial to all involved.
Patty Ducey-Brooks, publisher & executive editor
No, Ms. Brooks. Sjs1955 is correct. You requested for opinions and that’s what Sjs gave you.
You purport to offer solutions, then quickly chastise those who do not agree with you. And although you spin your article to fault the methods of publicly pitting children against vets, what you fail to realize is the fact that both demographics need to be taken care of.
Children need schooling, and some veterans need mental health care. Though it doesn’t mean that all children will be financially successful once they graduate, any more than all veterans are always going to be dangerous.
By wanting to keep veterans on military bases, Ms. Brooks, you segregate them into a location that keeps them from transitioning effectively into civilian life–which is the whole point of the facility.
Your trite proposals are on par with those who supported the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson in the 1950s; “Separate but Equal” didn’t work then. And it won’t work now.
That’s what Sjs1955 was trying to get you to see. But ummm…obviously you didn’t read his post.
—Howard Realubit
Thanks for your thoughtful comments…all of you who have taken time to read my editorial and proposed solutions. It’s time that issues as this are at the forefront of our efforts…We Can Do What’s Best for all involved, and without sacrificing good judgement and quality results. Thanks to all of you who understand this and are willing to spread the word of goodwill.
Patty Ducey-Brooks
Oops…see my comments below for Sjs1955
Happy New Year!
Patty
I disagree with the recent article concerning the establishment of a VA rehab facility at 2121 San Diego Ave. That article is so full of red herring, we could have a seafood feast.
I will only mention one. The issue of conditional use permits (CUP). The three buildings formally occupied bu the law school were all occupied using the CUP process. The Charter School now occupies on of those buildings, ad is operating under a CUP. The smallest of the three buildings is occupied By Dr. Boyd’s clinic and boarding facility for dogs, using a CUP. But to open a clinic and boarding facility for Veterans in the third building using a CUP somehow causes Patty to say that she is “shocked and dismayed that this is even being considered.”.
Well, I can only say that I am not shocked by the snobbish, selfish, and myopic stand that some of my neighbors have taken. I am simply ashamed.
I live directly across the street from the Cjharter School and I am a proud, but dissappointed 30 Navy Veteran.
David Klinger
David, you are wrong. Neither the Old Town Academy nor the Dr. Boyd’s dog boarding have nor needed CUP’s for their operation.
The former Thomas Jefferson Law School buildings are zoned “CL-6”. Operation of an elementary school, or a commercial business like dog boarding ARE permitted.
What is NOT permitted in a CL-6 zone is a medical facility of the type proposed by the VA. Pause for a moment and consider how the initially uncontrolled growth of UCSD and Mercy hospitals during the past 20 years damaged the surrounding residential neighborhoods in Hillcrest
This is a 17 April, 2011 entry on the Old Town Academy Blog: “The City of San Diego Planning Department has informed Old Town Academy that the CUP (Conditional Use Permit) process is complete, and that as soon as the building owner submits its paperwork (which should be within the next few days), Old Town Academy can now apply for building permits to begin construction of its tenant improvements.”
Do your homework.
Dave, while the elementary school may have stated that they had obtained a CUP to proceed with construction, that is not correct when compared with the CUP proposed for the VA facility.
The CUP sought by the landlord, on behalf of the VA, involves a major change in use. One that is so significant that it will require a vote of City Council, as did the CUP for the law school’s expansion in 1997.
Permitting of the elementary school did not require any such action, and it never came to City Council. Use of the property for a K-8 grade school is permitted in a CL-6 zone.
David – point of fact, the Charter School “started” the CUP process, and City Staff informed the school that its application was complete. That’s where it ended, because there was no action necessary on that CUP application. A further study of the application and the requested use, a K-8 school, confirmed that a CUP was not needed at all, as the K-8 school, (and the Pet facility) are approved uses of the original underlying zoning. The CUP request was withdrawn by the school, and the school permit was issued without any discretionary action as it was a permitted use in the zoning. The VA’s proposed medical facility, even without its overnight stay component, is not permitted in a CL-6 zone absent discretionary approval by the entire City Council.
Its the same old not in my backyard you are wrong everyone needs to help take are of these people not just other poor
With the lack of proper sentence structure it is difficult to determine exactly what your point is, Skystarfinger. But if you are trying to over-simply this issue with a cliche, you would do well to read up on the facts before chiming in with an emotional response. Municipalities like the City of San Diego come up with zones to help keep communities organized. This particular project is very worthy, funded by the President and backed by the community. However it needs to be located in a place identified by our city zoning requirements to be better suited for a medical facility.
Ms. Brooks, A well-reasoned and very thoughtful article, we (residents, business owners and OTA parents) all appreciate. Thank you.
I do think that the use of the military buildings that are in very close proximity would be a better sollution and stick to the plan for the neighborhood. Good points, Ms. Brooks.
Soldiers and Sailors and Airmen and Marines! OH MY!
“This Makes No Sense” makes no sense. The NIMBYistic attitude of some Mission Hills residents and business owners is the very thing that is “Pitting Children Against Vets”. What is it that the vocal opponents of the VA facility actually afraid of?
A proposal that could be an opportunity to exercise tolerance and compromise has evolved into a display of divisiveness and bigotry.
As a resident of Mission Hill, I urge all us to work together and to welcome the veterans to our community.
It’s true there’s an elementary school just across the street from the site where they plan to put a mental health treatment center and residence for homeless vets. But it’s also true the building they have chosen hangs over a freeway with air and noise pollution and no outdoor patio or rec space on a street with all-day noise from a school playground and crowded, frustrating traffic conditions 2x a day in a neighborhood that isn’t zoned for a mental health hospital. A strange choice for vets with PTSD or brain trauma injuries if that’s who the center takes in which would be great since they need it the most. Maybe, just maybe, it would be a better idea to put it somewhere else in a city with lots of empty buildings, some with quiet and open spaces and already zoned as needed. Not sure why they chose this spot but whether they go ahead as planned or put it somewhere else there’s little danger it won’t happen. San Diego does support vets and if there’s any controversy it’s about where, not if, this center (and hopefully many more like it– 40 beds is not enough if we’re talking about war vets who need help) will be built.
It’s true there’s an elementary school just across the street from the site where they plan to put a mental health treatment center and residence for homeless vets. But it’s also true that the building they chose hangs over a the Interstate 5 freeway with air and noise pollution and no outdoor patio or rec space on a street with all-day noise from a school playground and crowded, frustrating traffic conditions 2x a day in a neighborhood that isn’t zoned for a mental health hospital. A strange choice for vets with PTSD or brain trauma injuries if that’s who the center takes in which would be great since they need it the most. Maybe, just maybe, it would be a better idea to put it somewhere else in a city with lots of empty buildings, some with quiet and open spaces and already zoned as needed. Not sure why they chose this spot but whether they go ahead as planned or put it somewhere else there’s little danger it won’t happen. San Diego does support vets and if there’s any controversy it’s about where, not if, this center (and hopefully many more like it– 40 beds for war vets is barely going to make a dent) will be built.
It’s true there’s an elementary school just across the street from the site where they plan to put a mental health treatment center and residence for homeless vets.
But it’s also true that the building they chose hangs over a the Interstate 5 freeway with air and noise pollution and no outdoor patio or rec space on a street with all-day noise from a school playground and crowded, frustrating traffic conditions 2x a day in a neighborhood that isn’t zoned for a mental health hospital.
A strange choice for vets with PTSD or brain trauma injuries if that’s who the center takes in which would be great since they need it the most. Maybe, just maybe, it would be a better idea to put it somewhere else in a city with lots of empty buildings, some with quiet and open spaces and already zoned as needed.
Not sure why they chose this spot but whether they go ahead as planned or put it somewhere else there’s little danger it won’t happen. San Diego does support vets and if there’s any controversy it’s about where, not if, this center (and hopefully many more like it– 40 beds for wounded war vets is hardly enough) will be built.
Friends of Veterans, please come and support the the VA on 01/12/2012 at Francis Parker at 6:00 pm there are many veterans that live in mission hills that would support this project including this veteran of 20 years!!!!
Respectively Ms Ducey-BACK TO THE KITCHEN and rattle those pots and pans, I worked for years in Plans and Operations for the Army and this is the number one problem no woman could achieve results unless carried by a male soldier. The VERY LAST PLACE ON EARTH that a Veteran wants to be is BACK ON THE BASE. Maybe you subscribe to the idea purposed inthat Famous French movie “El Capitian”, that all old soldiers are now unfit for society and should be summarily executed after the war.
Sorry, couldn’t resist after re-reading some of the comments- You Ms Ducey, even stated you visited Viet Nam VETS in the hospital, and then complain the facilitiy is 22 feet from the children-like your were when you visited the Wounded Heroic(YOUNG MEN) it must have effected you, look at what you turnned out to be-GEE we would’nt want those chidren to ever get the idea that they could be Executive Editor, Mayor, Congress man-woman or actually want to make a difference after they have been in contact with men that have sacrificed something for them to become Something.
The proposed facility, with its windows and outdoor balconies on the south side, will have a commanding view of the parade grounds and obstacle courses at MCRD, less than 200 yards away. The vets will be able to hear the bugle calls over the PA, which I even hear at my home about 800-yards away. It will bring back LOTS of memories.
If that’s not enough, the balconies on the west side overlook the outdoor play area for the new commercial dog boarding facility that adjoins the proposed VA building. For Iraq and Afghanistan, dogs often carried IED’s, and were feared.
Yes, this seems like an ideal location for Vets with PTSD.
Let’s face up to the facts, when the VA initially chose this site the landlord never revealed that they had leased the adjoining buildings to a school, and dog boarding facility. By the time the VA discovered what had happened, it was to late.
All Vets know that the VA is a lumbering bureaucracy, and sets its mind to something, its difficult to change course. Regardless of whether it is in the best interest of the Vets it is supposed to be helping.
I was curious if you ever considered changing the structure of
your site? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say.
But maybe you could a little more in the way
of content so people could connect with it better.
Youve got an awful lot of text for only having 1 or two images.
Maybe you could space it out better?
Thanks for your comments and suggestions. It’s a matter of time and resources. We will share this with the team.